主动脉内球囊反搏在冠状动脉旁路移植术围术期使用时机的选择及对预后的影响

目的:比较在冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)围术期不同时段置入主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)患者的预后,寻找IABP的最佳使用时机,以改善患者预后。方法:总结我科2012年1月至2014年4月间,行CABG或CABG合并瓣膜手术且围术期使用IABP的65例病例,根据IABP置入时间的不同分为术前置入组、术中置入组和术后置入组,总结比较三组患者术前的临床资料,术中情况及术后并发症及预后情况。结果:65例病例,根据置入时间的不同分为术前置入组8例,术中置入组38例,术后置入组19例。三组患者性别,年龄,体质量差异无统计学意义。左心室射血分数(LVEF)三组间差异有统计学意义(P=0.007),术前置入组LVEF值最低,术中置入组和术后置入组LVEF差异无统计学意义。术中置入组的CPB时间和主动脉阻断时间显著高于术后置入组。三组间搭桥支数差异无统计学意义。三组患者IABP使用时间,呼吸机辅助时间及ICU滞留时间差异无统计学意义,术后并发症,院内病死率及随访病死率三组间差异无统计学意义。术前置入组除1例患者因股动脉缺血死亡,其余患者均恢复良好。术后置入组的再插管率显著高于术中置入组及术前置入组(P=0.008)。结论:高危冠心病患者术前开始使用IABP,相比较于术中和术后出现低心排时紧急置入,可以达到与其他两组患者相似的近期手术效果。下肢缺血仍然是IABP相关的重要并发症。高危冠心病患者术前使用IABP的优势还需要更多数据的支持。     

高危冠状动脉搭桥患者应用主动脉内球囊反搏治疗的时机选择

目的总结高危冠状动脉搭桥患者应用主动脉内球囊反搏（IABP）的经验,探讨预防性置入IABP和被动紧急置入IABP对临床预后的影响,为高危患者置入IABP的时机提供合理依据。方法回顾性分析2002年1月至2009年2月1632例冠脉搭桥术或冠状动脉搭桥同期其他心脏手术等高危冠状动脉搭桥患者应用IABP资料,共128例,分预防性置入IABP组（A组）68例和被动紧急置入IABP组（B组）60例。A组为左主干病变（冠脉狭窄〉90％）且无右冠脉保护、心功能低下（左室射血分数〈35％）、顽固性心绞痛保守治疗无效、冠状动脉搭桥同期其他心脏手术;B组为术中循环不稳定、心功能低下脱离体外循环困难或术后血流动力学不稳定、心功能降低等。分析A、B两组术后临床效果,比较两组术后死亡率、并发症发生率、术后心血管活性药物应用、IABP使用时间、术后机械通气时间、住ICU时间。结果A组术后死亡率和并发症发生率为8．8％和4．4％,B组为50．0％和14．9％;术后平均正性肌力药物辅助时间：（57．63±33．66）h比（94．63±62．72）h,P=0．027;平均IABP使用时间：（54．75±37．68）h比（93．12±52．21）h,P=0．015;机械通气时间：（31．83±14．71）h比（89．34±35．17）h,P=0．001;平均住ICU时间：（76.35±47．27）h比（102．41±44．12）h,P=0．032,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论对于高危冠状动脉搭桥患者,术前预防性置入IABP能减少正性肌力药物辅助时间,缩短IABP辅助时间、机械通气时间和住ICU时间,降低术后死亡率。     

主动脉内球囊反搏在高危冠状动脉旁路移植患者应用时机的探讨

目的:探讨不同时期置入主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)对高危冠心病患者行非体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术(OPCAB)的安全性、围手术期各指标的影响以及危险因素分析。方法:回顾本中心心脏外科自2015年1月至2018年8月,586例OPCAB患者中78例(13. 3%)高危冠心病患者应用IABP辅助治疗的时机及临床效果。根据置入IABP的时机,将患者分为预防应用组、紧急置入组两组。预防应用组:42例(53. 8%),术前对冠心病高危患者预防性用IABP辅助;紧急置入组:36例(46. 2%),OPCAB术中或术后因循环不稳定紧急置入IABP。对比两组患者使用IABP时间、ICU时间、术后住院天数、并发症、死亡率等指标。结果:两组患者术中旁路移植的桥血管数目及并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P0. 05)。预防应用组患者IABP应用时间、机械通气时间及ICU停留时间均明显短于紧急置入组(P0. 05)。术前预防应用组患者围手术期病死率(4. 8%)较紧急置入IABP患者(13. 9%)明显减低(P0. 05)。结论:对于高危冠心病患者术前预防性应用IABP能缩短IABP使用及ICU停留时间,降低术后30 d病死率,预防性应用IABP对高危OPCAB患者是安全有效的,再次置入IABP是高危OPCABG患者短期死亡的危险因素。     

冠脉造影联合 FFR 监测在高龄冠心病患者PCI 治疗中的应用价值

目的探讨冠状动脉(冠脉)造影联合心肌血流储备分数(FFR)监测在高龄冠心病患者经皮冠状动脉介入术(PCI)治疗中的应用价值。方法冠脉造影证实冠脉狭窄超过70%的高龄(年龄≥80岁)老年冠心病患者40例,随机分为观察组18例(39处病变)和对照组22例(43处病变)。对照组行冠脉造影,常规行PCI,置入药物涂层支架;观察组在冠脉造影基础上行FFR测定,对FFR≤0.75的病变行PCI治疗并置入药物涂层支架。比较两组置入支架数量、手术时间、造影剂剂量;随访12个月,记录心绞痛发作情况及主要心脏不良事件的发生率。结果观察组每例置入支架(0.9±0.5)个,手术时间为(64.4±16.2)min,造影剂使用剂量为(152.8±31.0)m L;对照组分别为(1.8±0.8)个、(67.7±21.9)min和(198.6±56.3)m L,观察组置入支架数量及造影剂使用剂量少于对照组(P均<0.05)。随访12个月,两组心绞痛及主要心血管不良事件发生率差异无统计学意义。结论高龄老年冠心病患者PCI治疗中联合应用冠脉造影和FFR监测,可减少术中支架置入数量及造影剂使用剂量,且并不增加近期心血管不良事件的发生。     

预防性应用主动脉球囊反搏在高危左主干病变冠状动脉移植手术中的作用

目的:探讨在高危左主干狭窄的冠心病患者在接受冠状动脉旁路移植手术(CABG)前,预防性应用主动脉球囊反搏(IABP)的临床效果。方法:回顾性分析我院部分高危左主干狭窄冠心病患者,接受CABG手术的病例,手术均采用不停跳CABG手术,术前安装IABP的共有56例。同时统计在我院接受CABG手术围手术期紧迫情况下安装IABP的病例,共有16例。比较这两组病例术中被迫紧急建立体外循环的比例,IABP反搏时间、气管插管时间、ICU时间及术后住院天数。观察术后1 d、术后2 d血浆肌钙蛋白I(c Tn I)。结果:术中紧迫组被迫紧急建立体外循环比例高于术前应用组;IABP反搏时间、气管插管时间,预防组少于紧迫组;预防组的术后住院天数少于紧迫组。紧迫组术后2d c Tn I高于预防组。结论:在高危左主干病变CABG手术中预防性应用IABP可以改善围术期的管理,提高救治成功率。     

主动脉内球囊反搏在冠脉搭桥手术围手术期应用时机与疗效的探讨

目的: 探讨主动脉内球囊反搏（IABP）在重症冠心病患者围手术期的应用时机。方法: 回顾分析2003年1月～2009年8月45例重症冠心病患者在围手术期应用IABP 的临床资料。根据使用时机不同分为3组:术前组13例,术中组13例,术后组19例,对各组术后呼吸机辅助时间,血管活性药物使用时间,ICU监护时间,术后IABP支持时间,平均心脏指数及手术死亡率等指标进行对比。结果: 45例患者均完成冠脉搭桥手术,总手术死亡率为31%,术前组在术后72 h心脏指数明显优于术中组和术后组,呼吸机辅助时间,术后IABP支持时间明显短于术中组和术后组,手术死亡率低于术后组(均P<0.05), 术前组患者术后使用血管活性药物时间较术中组和术后组缩短(P<0.05)。 结论: IABP是救治重症高危冠心病患者的安全有效手段,对高危患者术前积极应用IABP辅助治疗,可改善心脏功能,增加手术安全性,降低围手术期死亡率。     

急性冠脉综合征患者D-二聚体水平与支架置入治疗的关系研究

目的观察急性冠脉综合征患者D-二聚体水平与支架置入治疗之间的关系。方法对36例急性冠脉综合征患者和32例稳定型心绞痛患者进行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI),并对其PCI术前与术后1周、6个月D-二聚体水平进行比较。冠脉造影确定两组患者是否需要进行支架置入。结果两组患者D-二聚体水平在PCI术前、术后1周、术后6个月比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。且急性冠脉综合征组患者行冠脉造影均提示冠脉病变需支架置入,对照组患者冠脉造影均提示斑块稳定,无需支架置入。结论 D-二聚体水平的高低可作为冠状动脉病变不稳定的一个重要监测指标来指导临床早期诊断和预后的判断,亦可作为预测冠脉造影是否需要支架置入的辅助指标。     

体外膜肺氧合辅助下高危冠心病介入治疗的疗效观察

目的:观察38例体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)辅助下高危冠心病经皮冠状动脉介入术(PCI)的疗效。方法:术前评估病情,预防性植入ECMO,所有ECMO植入均由心内科介入医生穿刺植入,必要时联合主动脉内球囊反搏泵(IABP),然后进行PCI,术中肝素化,观察ECMO转机情况,观察转速、流量,及时调整ECMO鞘管位置,术前、中、后监测活化凝血时间(ACT),根据手术情况,决定ECMO是否术后即可拔除或维持,并对所有患者进行1～2年随访。结果:所有患者PCI均获得成功,术中2例出现慢血流,冠脉内给予硝酸甘油200μg,血流恢复正常,1例患者出现低血压,给予多巴胺、去甲肾上腺素等药物对症后均恢复;术后院内死亡3例,其中1例患者术后12h因脑出血死亡;1例患者因合并室间隔穿孔、多脏器衰竭3 d后死亡;1例患者为左主干急性闭塞,择期PCI后,发生重度肺部感染,心原性休克,术后37 d死亡。院外随访1～2年,2例因恶性心律失常猝死。其余33例存活,其中12例患者行冠脉造影复查,1例出现支架内闭塞,1例出现支架内再狭窄,再次支架植入治疗成功。结论:ECMO辅助下高危冠心病患者PCI相对安全有效,但要积极预防脑出血等相关并发症的发生。     

早期使用IABP对高危冠状动脉搭桥患者预后影响的研究

目的 探讨高危冠脉搭桥患者早期使用主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)的效果,评价其对患者预后的影响,为IABP在冠脉外科的临床早期应用提供参考.方法 回顾分析2008年1月至2012年12月1272例冠状动脉搭桥术患者资料,其中高危患者围手术期使用IABP 196例.根据置入IABP的时机,将患者分为A、B两组.A组:104例,术前预防性使用IABP;B组:92例,术中、术后出现低心排、恶性心律失常、脱离体外循环困难或术后血流动力学不稳定应用IABP.分别统计两组患者术后院内死亡率、IABP使用时间、重症监护室(ICU)滞留时间、呼吸机使用时间、正性肌力药物使用时间.结果 术后A、B两组患者院内死亡率分别为6.7％和27.2％,P＜0.025;IABP使用时间(51.36±31.28)h和(91.08±40.55)h,P=0.016;重症监护室(ICU)滞留时间(72.41±39.56)h和(98.66±48.27)h,P=0.036;呼吸机使用时间(28.39±15.73)h和(86.34±30.08)h,P=0.001;正性肌力药物使用时间(58.65±30.56)h和(96.53±32.70)h,P=0.023.术前预防性使用IABP术后死亡率下降,IABP使用时间、ICU滞留时间、呼吸机使用时间、正性肌力药物使用时间均减少,差异有统计学意义.结论 对于高危冠脉搭桥患者术前预防性使用IABP,可降低术后死亡率,减少正性肌力药物使用时间及IABP辅助时间,缩短呼吸机使用时间及ICU滞留时间,改善高危冠脉搭桥患者的预后.     

冠状动脉严重钙化病变经桡动脉旋磨术疗效分析

目的探讨经桡动脉冠脉旋磨术治疗严重钙化病变的临床疗效及安全性。方法选取2014年8月~2017年7月就诊于平顶山市第一人民医院心内科经冠状动脉造影诊断冠脉严重钙化病变患者44例,随机均分为对照组及观察组,对照组采用常规经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)治疗治疗,观察组采用冠脉内旋磨术联合PCI治疗;分析两组患者术前基线资料、术前术后冠脉造影结果及围手术期内急性心血管事件发生情况。结果两组患者术前临床基线资料比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05);术前冠脉造影结果比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05);围手术期内对照组6例(27.27%)支架未能通过,手术失败,2例(9.09%)患者术后出现无复流现象,5例(22.7%)冠状动脉夹层;观察组患者1例(4.55%)出现旋磨头嵌顿,1例(4.55%)出现无复流现象。两组患者均未发生急性心血管事件。结论经桡动脉旋磨术治疗冠脉严重钙化病变安全、有效。     

主动脉内球囊反搏辅助老年急性冠脉综合征患者介入治疗临床疗效分析

目的评价老年急性冠脉综合征(ACS)患者在主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)辅助下进行介入治疗的临床疗效及安全性。方法回顾性分析160例ACS患者在IABP辅助下行介入治疗的临床资料,按年龄分为两组:中青年组(年龄<60岁)58例,老年组(年龄≥60岁)102例。对两组的手术成功率、住院期间不良事件及IABP相关并发症进行对比分析。结果两组手术成功率分别为98.3%,97.1%;院内存活率分别为89.7%,83.3%;IABP相关并发症发生率分别为3.4%,5.9%。上述差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论IABP辅助介入治疗老年ACS患者具有与中青年ACS患者应用时相似的临床疗效及安全性。     

Single-center experience with the TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device to support patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention

We describe our experience of patients, from December 2005 through May 2007 who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with severely depressed left ventricle systolic function and complex coronary lesions. The complex coronary lesions included multiple vessel coronary artery disease, left main (LM) coronary artery disease, calcified coronary lesions and bypass graft disease. All patients were clinically assessed to be at too high of a risk for circulatory collapse without maximal hemodynamic support while they underwent high-risk PCI. The TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device (THpVAD) may be able to provide the necessary circulatory support required to enhance procedural success and patient safety during high-risk PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: We implanted the THpVAD in 6 patients who underwent high-risk PCI. There was unanimity among several physicians in our institution that each patient was an exceptionally high risk for circulatory collapse due to the anticipated procedural complexity. The average ejection fraction was 33% (range 15-65%). Five of the patients were considered to be at an unacceptably high risk for coronary artery bypass surgery. All 6 patients underwent multivessel PCI. Five of the 6 underwent unprotected LM PCI. One patient of the 5 underwent vein-graft PCI as well as a debulking procedure with rotational atherectomy and PCI of the LM. We had a 100% success rate with implantation of the THpVAD. Five of the 6 patients were alive at 30 days post procedure. One patient died 3 days after the procedure due to multiorgan failure. A vascular surgeon performed the removal of the devices with no associated complications. CONCLUSIONS: Our clinical experiences with the TandemHeart pVAD demonstrated that hemodynamic support could be achieved safely, efficiently and effectively by way of a percutaneous route in anticipation of high-risk PCI.     

主动脉内球囊反搏术在冠状动脉搭桥术后心脏泵衰竭中的应用体会

目的总结主动脉内球囊反搏（IABP）在冠状动脉搭桥术（CABG）后心脏泵衰竭应用的临床经验,探讨此类手术应用IABP的时机选择和适应证。方法总结2007年6月至2012年6月,5例因冠心病行CABG后患者出现心脏泵衰竭,在IABP支持下,术后心功能及血液动力学恢复稳定的情况。结果5例患者均在术后3-7d撤除IABP,恢复良好,痊愈出院。结论冠脉病变严重（多支病变、左主干病变）及急性心肌梗死患者,行冠状动脉搭桥术风险较大,特别是术后出现严重的低心排使手术效果更加不确定。术后应用IABP可以有效地改善心功能,提高手术成功率。     

Percutaneous left ventricular assist device, TandemHeart, for high-risk percutaneous coronary revascularization. A single centre experience

Patients with severe depression of left ventricular ejection fraction and high-risk coronary lesions are at risk of developing complications during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is a support that helps the interventionalist in such hemodynamic complications during high-risk PCI, but it does not offer complete circulatory support. Instead, TandemHeart (Cardiac Assist, Pittsburg, PA, USA) is a percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD) that gives total left circulatory support and can be used for patients in cardiogenic shock or for elective PCI at high-risk. TandemHeart is a percutaneous transseptal ventricular assist device that allows a rapid percutaneous left ventricular support without the need for surgical implantation. Between November 2003 and April 2005, 6 patients admitted to our coronary care unit (CCU) underwent either emergency (n = 3) or elective (n = 3) placement of the TandemHeart device before a high-risk procedure. From our initial experience we conclude that the percutaneous transseptal ventricular assist device, TandemHeart, can be easily and rapidly deployed either in emergency or in elective high-risk PCI to achieve complete cardiac assistance.     

Percutaneous left ventricular assist device: "TandemHeart" for high-risk coronary intervention.

Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with severely compromised left ventricular systolic function and complex coronary lesions, including multivessel disease, left main disease, or bypass graft disease, are at higher risk of adverse outcomes from hemodynamic collapse. The TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device may provide circulatory support during high-risk PCI. We implanted the TandemHeart device in eight patients who underwent high-risk PCI. The patients were considered to be at exceptionally high risk for decompensation due to procedural complexity combined with underlying LV dysfunction. The mean ejection fraction was 30% +/- 9% and five patients were turned down for surgical revascularization. Seven patients underwent multivessel PCI, including three patients who underwent unprotected left main coronary artery PCI. There was 100% procedural success. The TandemHeart was removed immediately post-PCI with no groin complications. Six patients are event- and symptom-free at 189 +/- 130 days; one patient died 10 days post-PCI after lower extremity bypass surgery and another developed acute renal failure postprocedure, requiring hemodialysis. Our initial clinical experience with the TandemHeart ventricular assist device demonstrates that hemodynamic support can be rapidly achieved percutaneously during high-risk PCI, with excellent procedural success in highly complex and critically ill patients.     

Comparison of Impella and intra-aortic balloon pump in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: Vascular complications and incidence of bleeding

Objective: Compare vascular complications and incidence of bleeding of Impella 2.5 and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI).

Background: Large arterial sheath size for device insertion is associated with vascular and/or bleeding complications; gastrointestinal bleeding may also occur with anti-coagulation use.

Methods: Patients with an acute coronary syndrome receiving Impella 2.5 or IABP during high-risk PCI were studied (13 Impella; 62 IABP). Vascular complications and incidence of bleeding were compared.

Results: Post-procedure hematocrit was similar between groups. Blood transfusion occurred in 38.4% and 32.2% of patients in the Impella and IABP groups, respectively (P = NS); 65.3%, 30.7% and 3.8% of bleeding were due to vascular access site/procedure related, gastrointestinal and genitourinary, respectively. There was no statistical significant difference in vascular complications between the Impella and IABP groups (15.3% and 6.4% of patients, respectively); mesenteric ischemia (n = 1) and aortic rupture (n = 1) were only in the IABP group. In-hospital and one-year mortality were not statistically significant between groups.

Conclusion: Impella can be used as safely as IABP during high-risk PCI with similar vascular and bleeding complications. Importantly, approximately one third of bleeding was from the gastrointestinal system warranting careful prophylactic measures and monitoring.     

Role of prophylactic intra-aortic balloon pump in high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has been shown to support patients who are at high risk for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) or becoming hemodynamically unstable during PCI, but the longer term outcomes of these strategies are unknown. This study investigated the outcomes of high-risk patients who received a prophylactic IABP (P-IABP) versus patients who required rescue IABP (R-IABP) because of intraprocedural complications. Clinical outcomes of 68 consecutive patients (69 procedures) who underwent high-risk PCI with P-IABP support were compared with those of 46 patients who required R-IABP. Patients who presented with cardiogenic shock or acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and those who were on mechanical ventilators were excluded. Clinical baseline characteristics were similar between groups except for more diabetics and patients with hypercholesterolemia in the P-IABP group. The procedural success was higher in the P-IABP group, with lower in-hospital mortality and major complications, than in the R-IABP group. At 6 months, the mortality and major adverse cardiac event rates were lower in the P-IABP group (8% vs 29%, p < 0.01, and 12% vs 32%, p = 0.02, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that prophylactic insertion of an IABP is the only independent predictor of survival at 6 months. The incidence of vascular complications was low and comparable except for more major bleeding (15% vs 3%, p = 0.03) in the R-IABP group. In conclusion, patients who undergo high-risk PCI and then receive P-IABP support have favorable outcomes compared with those who require R-IABP for intraprocedural complications. Therefore, in high-risk patients undergoing PCI, liberal use of a P-IABP should be considered.     

左主干急性闭塞或狭窄所致急性心肌梗死的急诊介入治疗

目的总结左主干急性闭塞或狭窄所致急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的经验,探讨急诊PCI在此类患者中的安全性和有效性。方法从1995年1月至2004年12月,在1343例急诊PCI中,共有11例梗死相关血管为左主干。11例患者均为男性,年龄43~70岁,平均(56·4±9·2)岁,其中6例(54·5%)入院时即存在严重心原性休克。所有患者均在主动脉内球囊反搏支持下接受急诊PCI治疗。结果8例急诊置入支架,余3例仅行球囊扩张,后者有2例术后接受急诊冠状动脉旁路移植术。住院期间死亡5例(45·5%),存活的6例患者均完成3个月随访,其中4例随访超过2年,1例于术后4年猝死,1例患者术后5年重复造影检查结果良好。对比分析提示术前存在良好的侧支循环可能是影响此类患者急诊PCI术后疗效的因素。结论左主干急性闭塞或严重狭窄所致的AMI患者病情凶险,急性期死亡率高。侧支循环形成与否,治疗策略和预后不同,主动脉内球囊反搏支持下急诊PCI治疗可以挽救部分患者的生命和改善预后,对于侧支循环不良的患者,部分再灌注策略可能为一种有效手段之一,值得进一步研究。     

一种穿刺置管新方法在ECMO联合IABP介入治疗复杂高危冠心病中的应用

目的 评估应用同侧股动脉置入主动脉内球囊反搏（IABP）和大直径经皮冠状动脉介入（PCI）治疗指引导管,联合对侧股动脉与股静脉用于置入体外膜肺氧合（ECMO）的穿刺策略,观察该置管方式对于复杂高危冠心病患者（CHIP）完成PCI手术的安全性和可行性。 方法 共纳入7例患者,左侧股动脉与股静脉置入ECMO鞘管（动脉置管直径15F,静脉置管直径17F）,右侧股浅动脉置入IABP（均为7F动脉鞘管）,右侧股总动脉置入PCI股动脉鞘管（均为7F动脉鞘管）,ECMO动脉及静脉穿刺处采用预置ProGlide血管缝合器止血,PCI和IABP股动脉穿刺处应用Angioseal血管封堵器止血。术后针对股动脉、股静脉穿刺部位进行临床症状与体征评估,并全部进行血管超声检查,观察该穿刺置管的成功率以及完成PCI手术的可行性,观察住院期间穿刺部位相关的并发症发生率。 结果 7例患者中,男性6例,女性1例,年龄（57±12）岁,合并高血压5例（71%）、糖尿病3例（43%）、慢性肾病1例（14%）、高脂血症4例（57%）、卒中1例（14%）、外周血管疾病4例（57%）。双侧股动脉,左侧股静脉穿刺成功率100%,PCI手术完成率100%。仅一例患者术后超声检查发现股浅动脉穿刺部位发生皮下小血肿,所有患者住院期间均未观察到严重血管并发症。 结论 在CHIP患者中,当需要ECMO联合IABP维持血流动力学稳定,并需要穿刺股动脉置入大直径指引导管完成复杂PCI手术的情况下,可采用同侧股浅动脉置入IABP,股总动脉置入大直径（7F）PCI动脉鞘管,对侧股动脉、股静脉置入ECMO的手术穿刺策略,该方法安全可行。     

预防性应用IABP治疗高危冠心病的有效性和安全性

目的:观察高危冠心病患者预防性应用经主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)治疗的有效性和安全性。方法:入选符合高危冠心病患者59例,分为IABP组(预防性使用IABP,n=23)和非IABP组(未使用或被动型使用IABP,n=36),IABP组PCI前常规预防性的植入IABP,非IABP组未植入IABP或因病情恶化被动性植入IABP。术中术后观察指标:1IABP相关的并发症(血小板下降、贫血、下肢栓塞、坠积性肺炎等);2恶性心律失常、心力衰竭、心源性休克的发生率;31年内主要不良心血管事件(MACE)发生率。结果:IABP组贫血和坠积性肺炎或栓塞的发生率显著高于非IABP组(P0.05),两组血小板下降的比例无明显差异;IABP组发生心力衰竭、心源性休克和恶性心律失常的比例显著低于非IABP组(P0.05);两组再发心绞痛或非致死性心肌梗死和再次血运重建发生率无显著差异,IABP组1年内病死率显著低于非IABP组(P0.05)。结论:高危冠心病患者预防性应用IABP能有效地改善血流动力学,增加冠脉灌注,减少心力衰竭、恶性心律失常和心源性休克的发生,提高了高危冠心病患者1年的存活率,且并未发生与IABP植入相关的严重并发症。